OK SOME fair points there.
I'm not some daydreaming loony though believe it or not. At least I like to think not!
I personally believe that the breakthrough will come not with some new rotor system (there's only so many ways you can propel air after all), but through the powerplants, where there is a lot of scope for improvement. Graviman - I see where you're coming from. The problem is Moller have obviously decided they want a high speed aircraft, and bar having a separate helicopter-like VTOL rotor, they've correctly in my opinion chosen to accept the lower efficiency during that stage of flight to increase its efficiency at high speed. Even if it does mean that during a vertical takeoff it uses 5x the power of a helicopter. Harriers don't like hovering either, but it was an incredibly successful aircraft which was capable of it, and which was designed almost 50 years ago.
At the moment there's a lot of interesting research going on regarding alternative future power sources - hydrogen ICEs, and electricity storage for example. Electric motors in particular are far more energy efficient than fossil fuel powerplants will ever be; the problem as usual is reducing the weight while increasing the energy storage capacity. The boom in mobile electronic devices (phones, laptops etc) the last decade or so has prompted manufacturers to invest in battery research which means they're getting lighter and more efficient all the time... possibilities there maybe.
There's also the possibility of 'energy regeneration' (horrible term I know) through effectively air braking, and perhaps some future methods of wireless energy transmission such as those discussed here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6129460.stm (more than simple energy induction) - all ideas which one day may go some way to getting future aircraft off the ground.
Devil 49 - I hope I don't sound like I'm playing devil's advocate here - but to go back to history again in 1865 the UK parliament passed an act creating a speed limit of 4mph in the country and 2mph in towns for what they called 'self-propelled locomotives'. It also required a bloke to walk 60 yds in front with a red flag or lantern to enforce the speed limit and warn anyone ahead of the approaching machine.
Cars of then and cars of today… time moves on.
The technology already exists for a computer in a car to autonomously recognise a huge range of potential dangers (driver falling asleep, water on the road, collision ahead, vehicle on collision course, etc), carry out the appropriate action (apply brakes, warn driver), and then transmit details of the hazard to systems in other cars so they have increased 'awareness'.
GPS has simplified navigation to 'I'm here - I'm going THERE – follow this line', FMCs can tune, identify, display and navigate around a whole range of navaids with almost no pilot input...
I can't see the public getting their hands on Skycar-like machines at any point in the near future, no. But my point is never say never
